South Africa Case Law

Economic Freedom Fighters v Parliament of the Republic of SA and Others (1054/2024)

Economic Freedom Fighters v Parliament of the Republic of SA and Others (1054/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 41 (6 February 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1054/2024

Judge

DS Kusevitsky

The court found that the applicant failed to satisfy the requirements for an interim interdict. The urgency was self-created due to the applicant's deliberate non-participation in the rule amendment process and late filing. The impugned Joint Rules do not represent a significant departure from existing parliamentary practice and do not violate members' constitutional rights to free speech, as robust debate is permitted after the President's address. No evidence was provided that the rules were adopted to target the applicant specifically. The separation of powers doctrine precludes judicial i…

Source excerpt

• Separation Of Powers
• Interim Interdict
• Parliamentary Privilege
• Freedom Of Speech
• Internal Parliamentary Rules

Chairperson of the Nation Council of Provinces v Malema (535/2015)

Chairperson of the Nation Council of Provinces v Malema (535/2015) [2016] ZASCA 69; [2016] 3 All SA 1 (SCA); 2016 (5) SA 335 (SCA) (20 May 2016)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

535/2015

Judges

Ponnan, Leach, Petse, Saldulker, Swain

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Chairperson's rulings were unlawful and irrational. Mr Malema's statements, when properly interpreted, constituted robust political criticism of the government and ruling party, not personal attacks on Members of Parliament. The standing order invoked by the Chairperson only applies to speech targeting Members of Parliament, not criticism of government policy or conduct. Even if the statements were construed as implicating Members of Parliament, they were protected by section 58(1) of the Constitution as legitimate political speech. The Chairperson's…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Speech In Parliament
• Parliamentary Privilege
• Standing Orders Interpretation
• Judicial Review Of Parliamentary Decisions

Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT86/15)

Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (CCT86/15) [2016] ZACC 8; 2016 (5) BCLR 577 (CC); 2016 (3) SA 487 (CC) (18 March 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 86/15

Judges

Moseneke DCJ, Cameron J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J, Nkabinde J, Nugent AJ, Van der Westhuizen J, Zondo J

Section 11 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004, as interpreted, applies to members of Parliament and permits their arrest and removal for creating or participating in a disturbance. This infringes the privilege of free speech and the immunities guaranteed to members under sections 58(1) and 71(1) of the Constitution. The Constitution only allows parliamentary rules and orders, not legislation, to limit free speech in Parliament. The immunities from arrest and criminal proceedings are absolute. The constitutional defect in section 11…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Privilege
• Freedom Of Speech In Parliament
• Powers Privileges And Immunities Act
• Separation Of Powers
• Reading In Remedy

Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2792/2015)

Democratic Alliance v Speaker of the National Assembly and Others (2792/2015) [2015] ZAWCHC 60; 2015 (4) SA 351 (WCC); [2015] 3 All SA 72 (WCC) (12 May 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2792/2015

Judges

Le Grange, Cloete, Boqwana

The court held that section 11 of the Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliament and Provincial Legislatures Act 4 of 2004 is inconsistent with the Constitution to the extent that it permits the arrest of members of Parliament for conduct protected by sections 58(1)(b) and 71(1)(b) of the Constitution. The reference to 'a person' in section 11 could include members, but the provision is overbroad and infringes the constitutional privilege of freedom of speech and immunity from arrest for parliamentary conduct. Parliament's internal rules provide sufficient mechanisms to maintain order wi…

Source excerpt

• Parliamentary Privilege
• Freedom Of Speech
• Separation Of Powers
• Powers Privileges And Immunities Act
• Interpretation Of Statutes

Malema and Another v Chairman of the National Council of Provinces and Another (12189/2014)

Malema and Another v Chairman of the National Council of Provinces and Another (12189/2014) [2015] ZAWCHC 39; 2015 (4) SA 145 (WCC); [2015] 2 All SA 728 (WCC) (15 April 2015)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

12189/2014

Judges

Bozalek, Cloete

The court held that the Speaker materially misconstrued the reach of the standing order by interpreting the applicant's statements as imputing improper motives and accusing individual Members of Parliament of murder. The Speaker's expansive interpretation of 'government' was unwarranted in the context and unduly restricted robust parliamentary debate. The Speaker's partial reliance on the sub judice rule regarding the commission of inquiry was invalid. The Speaker's rulings were irrational and unlawful as they unjustifiably limited the constitutional right to freedom of speech in Parliament.…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Speech In Parliament
• Parliamentary Privilege
• Standing Orders
• Judicial Review
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Separation Of Powers

Lekota and Another v Speaker, National Assembly and Another (14641/12)

Lekota and Another v Speaker, National Assembly and Another (14641/12) [2012] ZAWCHC 385; 2015 (4) SA 133 (WCC) (11 December 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14641/12

Judges

P B Fourie, A Le Grange, R C A Henney

The court held that the Speaker acted within her lawful authority and discretion in ruling that the applicant's remarks regarding the President were out of order, as such remarks constituted a serious reflection on the President's integrity and could only be made by way of a substantive motion in terms of the standing order. The Speaker's decision was not arbitrary or irrational, and the sanction imposed for the applicant's refusal to withdraw the remarks was justified and consistent with parliamentary practice. The Promotion of Administrative Justice Act did not apply, as the rulings concern…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Speech In Parliament
• Parliamentary Privilege
• Standing Orders
• Constitutional Review
• Judicial Deference
• Costs In Constitutional Litigation

Speaker of National Assembly v De Lille MP and Another (297/98)

Speaker of National Assembly v De Lille MP and Another (297/98) [1999] ZASCA 50; [1999] 4 All SA 241 (A) (26 August 1999)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

297/98

Judges

Mahomed, Van Heerden, Nienaber, Olivier, Farlam

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the National Assembly had no constitutional authority to suspend Patricia De Lille for speech made in the House.

• Parliamentary Privilege
• Freedom Of Speech In Parliament
• Powers And Privileges Of Parliament Act
• Judicial Review Of Parliamentary Action
• Parliamentary-privilege
• Freedom-of-speech-in-parliament